Snowden’s whistle

Sunday

Jun 23, 2013 at 6:00 AM

Robert Nemeth

It has been debated whether Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old analyst who leaked information about two secret National Security Agency programs, is a heroic whistle-blower trying to preserve civil liberties, or a traitor endangering national security.

As I see it, the question is a no-brainer. Mr. Snowden is certainly no hero. He committed a serious crime, for which he should be held accountable. A government contractor rather than a public employee, he isn’t protected by the Whistle-Blower Protection Act. More to the point, whistle-blowing protections only shield those who expose illegal wrongdoing — not people who merely want to make political statements against policies that, however objectionable to some, are properly authorized and perfectly legal.

By all appearances, Mr. Snowden is an egotistical misfit, a high school and college dropout who seems to cherish publicity. Feigning illness, he took a leave of absence from his job and fled to Hong Kong to leak to newspapers two NSA programs: An effort to collect data from Verizon about millions of phone calls; and an operation called PRISM, which harvests data from Internet sites.

The government insists that the information-gathering is essential to protect national security and that no civil liberties have been endangered. Both programs are overseen by Congress, and the records are only used after a warrant is issued by a court.

Mr. Snowden’s conduct is indefensible for several reasons. He betrayed his employers, Booz Allen Hamilton and the C.I.A., as well as oaths he took to keep the secrecy of the material with which he was entrusted. He betrayed the basic levels of trust and deference to common procedure that are essential for society to function properly. As syndicated columnist David Brooks pointed out, Mr. Snowden also betrayed the Constitution. “The Founders did not create the United States so that some solitary 29-year-old could make unilateral decisions about what should be exposed,” he wrote. Mr. Snowden’s conduct is endemic among a growing number of people who harbor a deep suspicion of authority, believe that hierarchies and organizations are suspect, and nourish a fervent devotion to “transparency” — even when it is not warranted.

The rising tide of distrust within our society, and the resulting cynicism, can be just as corrosive as any threat to our freedoms. Mr. Snowden’s admirers ignore the fact that there might be times when a tradeoff is inevitable between protecting those liberties and safeguarding ourselves against terrorist attacks.

•

On Tuesday, the voters of Massachusetts will have a chance to improve the political balance of the U.S. Senate and inject fresh blood into that anemic body. They should not miss that opportunity.

A special election will pit Edward Markey, a liberal Democrat, against Gabriel Gomez of the GOP, in a contest to replace John F. Kerry, who left to become secretary of state. Mr. Markey, of Malden, is a 37-year fixture of the House of Representatives, marching in lockstep with the Democratic Party’s left wing. Mr. Gomez, a former naval aviator and U.S. Navy SEAL, is a successful businessman with an MBA from Harvard Business School.

His impressive résumé is only part of the story. If elected to the Senate, Mr. Markey will push the same liberal agenda that has been his trademark since 1976, when he first entered Congress. Mr. Gomez comes to the job without excessive political baggage and a sense of independence. He pledges to serve no more than two terms and then move on, a refreshing change in a system dominated by entrenched career politicians. Term limitation, mandated or voluntary, is always healthy.

A hypothetical question involving abortion underscores the difference between the candidates. Mr. Markey declared he would never vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice who opposes legalized abortion. Mr. Gomez said: “I don’t believe there should be a litmus test. If a judge comes in front of me and they follow the Constitution, and they’re ethical, and they’re pro-choice, and they’ve done a good job, I’ll vote for them. If they’re pro-life, I’ll vote for them.”

Another comment that sheds light on Mr. Markey’s partisan mindset was made during a discussion about the attack on the U.S. diplomatic installation in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, that killed four Americans, including Glen Doherty, a former Navy SEAL from Winchester. Mr. Markey charged that Republicans have politicized the incident to derail a potential presidential bid by Hillary Clinton in 2016. The rebuttal by Mr. Gomez was on target: “I cannot think of a more classic example of putting partisan politics ahead of the people.”

Mr. Gomez, the son of Colombian immigrants, is said to be a centrist who eschews some of his party’s conservative principles and could be part of a coalition with Democrats to break the gridlock in the Senate. That is a worthy goal, and it may be true that Republicans in Massachusetts need to make ideological compromises to be effective.

There is a caveat, however: Making concessions involves a delicate balance, and there’s a limit to leaning left for members of the GOP before they become Republicans in name only. Too much stretching would compromise the purpose of the two-party system.

A vote for Ed Markey is an endorsement of a discredited status quo. Choosing newcomer Gabriel Gomez could bring something better. It’s well worth a try.